(Nearly) A Century with the ICN

By Maria Coppola, Elizabeth Kraus, Cynthia Lagdameo,

Paul O’Brien & Randolph Tritell

(Federal Trade Commission)1

May 2020

Nearly twenty years after its founding, the International Competition Network (“ICN”) is an active,

vibrant network of competition law enforcers, practitioners, and academics from around the world.

Twenty years ago, the idea of the ICN as a primary driver of international competition dialogue,

development, and convergence was no guarantee. How did it happen? As the ICN approaches

twenty, five ICN participants from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) – with nearly 100 years

of combined ICN participation – offer their perspectives on the keys to the ICN’s accomplishments.

The FTC was a founding member of the ICN and has maintained its participation in the network as

a top priority for the agency’s international program. With the support of successive agency heads

and a major resource commitment, the FTC has: helped lead the ICN’s strategic thinking as part of

the Steering Group; led the Merger, Unilateral Conduct, and Agency Effectiveness Working Groups

as well as the ICN’s implementation work and its Training on Demand project; led or co-led the

development of recommended practices on merger review procedures, merger analysis, the

assessment of dominance, and agency investigative process; organized and co-hosted seven ICN

workshops; and participated in dozens of projects across the ICN. It is a privilege to work with

counterparts from around the world to support international competition convergence and

cooperation through the ICN. For this article, the authors bring to bear nearly 100 years of ICN

experience to discuss five pillars of the ICN’s success:

• inclusive growth

• innovative tools

• commitment to implementation

• growth of content

• development of a voice as global advocate for competition

I. The ICN’s Inclusive Growth

Founded a mere decade after the fall of the Soviet Union, even the most visionary of ICN’s creators

could not have anticipated the explosive growth of ICN membership. Established in the Fall of 2001

by 15 competition agencies,2 ICN membership had already grown to 59 members by the ICN’s first

annual conference in 2002. By 2004, that number had increased by more than half, to 91 members;

98 members by 2006; 109 members by 2010, and so forth. Today, the ICN counts nearly all of the

world’s competition agencies as members – with 140 members and hundreds of non-governmental

experts (“NGAs”) from around the globe.3

This expansion in ICN membership reflected an intentional strategy to be inclusive. The ICN, one of

the early chairs famously said, “is open to everyone” in the competition community.4 Membership

requirements are minimal and largely unchanged since the network’s creation: “A member of the

ICN is a . . . competition agency entrusted with the enforcement of competition law(s).”5 This simple

criterion, along with the widespread adoption of competition laws around the world, has facilitated

the network’s exponential growth.

Although a network of government agencies, members work hand in hand with a broad array of

NGAs, including academics, in-house counsel, private practitioners, economic consultants,

consumer groups, and representatives of international organizations. NGAs help identify projects;

produce and offer important comments on work product; contribute to the policy dialogue at

conferences and workshops; and help disseminate ICN work product and promote its use.6 In no

other government competition fora do non-governmental experts play such an integral role. The

network’s inclusive approach to membership coupled with the active participation of non-

governmental advisors from around the world means that the ICN is truly a reflection of the global

antitrust community.

ICN leadership also has underscored a commitment to inclusiveness by ensuring that the network

responds to the needs of all of its members; deep engagement of members and NGAs has been a

priority of every ICN Steering Group. Early on, to address the challenges of a growing membership,

a Vice Chair for outreach was created in 2007, a position held first by South Africa’s David Lewis,

followed by FTC Chairman Bill Kovacic, and today by the President of the Mexican competition

agency, Alejandra Palacios Prieto. David Lewis focused on the needs of newer agencies with the

purpose of engaging them more fully in the activities of the ICN. He helped the network intensify the

presence and degree of participation of young agencies in the activities of the ICN, including the

governance structures, the working groups, and the various conferences and workshops.7 Fifty-two

ICN members responded to his outreach questionnaire, and dozens of NGAs participated in the

focus groups Lewis led in 2009. Bill Kovacic continued these efforts, and expanded the scope of

focus to engagement of a broader range of NGAs – both geographically and professional

background (academics and consumer groups), and drafted a proposal for the ICN to engage in self-

assessment to determine, among other things, how best to ensure that the ICN is responsive to all

of its constituents.

The self-assessment exercise expanded into ICN Chair John Fingleton’s signature initiative – the

ICN’s “Second Decade” project. The project is described more in Section II below, but as part of the

process of formulating the ICN’s Second Decade Vision,8 almost every member of the ICN was

interviewed about its views on the ICN’s work and future direction. Feedback was solicited from non-

governmental advisers, through a questionnaire and discussions via conference call, with over 70

NGAs contributing. The Second Decade project resulted in institutional change to increase member

engagement, for example, by expanding the number of leadership position and requiring working

group leaders to rotate in order to open up leadership opportunities to more members.

Current ICN Chair, Andreas Mundt, assumed office with a commitment to three “pillars,” one of

which was inclusiveness.9 According to Mundt, broad membership has numerous benefits: “Not only

does it ensure that the issues dealt with really matter to the competition law community worldwide,

but it also gives the ICN the possibility to advocate its vision on the worldwide playing field of

multinational enterprises.”10 Mundt reiterated that inclusiveness is not only about agencies, but “is

also about the participation of NGAs who provide extremely valuable input.”11

The network created structures specifically to support engagement, in the Advocacy and

Implementation Network, now known as the Promotion & Implementation team. The P&I team aims

to raise awareness of ICN work product and promote its implementation, engaging members,

working groups, and non-governmental advisors, to make the ICN the key element of global

convergence in competition law. P&I’s work is complemented by the activities of Vice Chair Palacios

Prieto, introducing new members to the ICN, and encouraging the participation of younger agencies

across the network.

To underscore commitment to engaging with all of its members, ICN leadership instituted “town

hall” sessions, open to all members and NGAs, for discussion and debate; Steering Group chairs

instituted regular updates for members and NGAs via a newsletter; and for nearly a decade, the ICN

hosted a blog and now posts updates on its website and twitter to highlight network and member

activity. In addition to these communication initiatives aimed at inclusiveness, ICN chairs and vice

chairs have targeted specific groups for deeper engagement, for example, by creating projects for

and by competition economists, and by developing “toolkits” of what to expect and how to get

involved for new members and NGAs.

Still other parameters, such as project selection, reflect ICN’s commitment to inclusiveness. Every

working group, and every ICN project, is open to the participation and input of all members. The

network’s earliest projects addressed advocacy and capacity building, selected intentionally for their

widespread relevance and responsiveness to the needs of younger agencies. The ICN regularly has

used its resources to examine and address the needs of new and younger agencies. For example,

in 2006, it produced a report that identifies the type of challenges young agencies experience and

the measures these agencies have applied to address the challenges.12 In 2019, the ICN revisited

the topic, with an update to the 2006 report.13 The ICN’s Training on Demand online compilation of

training videos also includes a module on competition policy in developing countries14 and one

offering advice for new and young competition agencies,15 in addition to many on the fundamentals

of enforcement.

The ICN has continued its commitment to diversity by addressing a wide portfolio of work:

investigative fundamentals and more sophisticated enforcement subjects across the Merger, Cartel,

and Unilateral Conduct Working Groups, and a host of operational and institutional matters in the

Agency Effectiveness Working Group. In addition, conference hosts and the Steering Group regularly

take on special projects to address particular interests such as competition policy in an economic

downturn, competition law and policy in small economies, competition issues involving state-owned

enterprises, abuse of superior bargaining position, and disruptive innovation.

Through these concerted efforts that touch on every aspect of the network, today the ICN has

mainstreamed the participation of its younger agencies – a reflection of the additional experience

gained by the agencies once considered “younger,” but equally proof of ICN’s integration of

members large and small, old and young. The network’s approach to membership, participation,

leadership roles, work product, and communication has created a fully inclusive body.

II. ICN Innovations Leading to Convergence and a Community of Common Cause

The ICN was launched to provide antitrust agencies from developed and developing countries with

a more focused network for addressing practical antitrust enforcement and policy issues of common

concern.16 From its inception, the ICN had the lofty goals of facilitating procedural and substantive

convergence and cooperation in antitrust policy and enforcement, as a virtual, soft-law network

involving the full range of competition community participants. Its combination of innovative

elements related to institutional design, informal, inclusive working methods, and bottom-up

approaches to project selection and development has not only helped the ICN to achieve these

goals, but has also resulted in this virtual network incubating a deeper competition community.

Innovative Institutional Design

Through both foresight and necessity, ICN was founded as a virtual, specialized network based on

inclusiveness and consensus. It was conceived as the only international forum dedicated exclusively

to competition policy and law. With membership open to all competition agencies – not only those

of like mind and experience – working hand-in-hand with non-governmental advisors, private sector

experts, interested academics and experts from multilateral organizations engaged in the field, the

ICN has proved unique in its capacity to engage all relevant actors on all issues of competition law

and policy. Moreover, its novel, virtual nature has prompted ICN members and project participants

to engage more directly and frequently with one another in comparison to other international fora

that rely on permanent secretariats and established infrastructures.17 The network’s virtual nature

also has allowed ICN to adjust its organization flexibly around projects of interest to its participants,

over time. Finally, though it lacks rule making functions, the ICN’s consensus-based, soft-law

approach to developing understanding and convergence has, in fact, complemented and enhanced

these attributes to prove one of its strongest features. There is an inextricable link between the

ICN’s non-binding nature and the scope, content, and value of its work. To achieve consensus, ICN

actors engage with one another to understand similarities and differences in approaches in an effort

to build common understanding as to the best approaches to competition policy and enforcement

issues.18 This process helps to promote dialog and the exchange of experience and learning among

all ICN participants. Thus, even before identifying certain approaches as best practice, the

consensus process serves to disseminate know-how and experience, providing valuable learning

and support to newer agencies.

As described by former ICN Chair David Lewis, at its foundation, the ICN’s soft-law approach is

founded on persuasion through shared experience rather than coercion.19 ICN members are free to

use and implement its work product within their own legal contexts as they see fit. The lack of

binding implementation obligations has a beneficial byproduct in terms of work product

development. Discussions can focus on the identification of optimal practices without

defensiveness from participating members about their non-compliance. Without the threat of

binding rule-making authority, members have been open to and accepting of aspirational, forward-

looking best practice approaches that may not reflect their own practices.

Innovative Working Methods

The ICN established its working methods around these institutional features, providing for flexibility

in developing demand-driven projects. Members select projects and produce work product in

conjunction with interested NGAs, which helps to ensure that the ICN’s work is relevant to all. This

has resulted in a long history of work product focused on issues of practical import to the

community.20 While the ICN is guided by a Steering Group composed of representatives of ICN

member agencies, its work is developed from the bottom up, in project-oriented Working Groups,

currently addressing Advocacy, Agency Effectiveness, Cartels, Mergers, and Unilateral Conduct.21

Participation in individual projects and working groups is purely voluntary, yet a broad swath of

agencies and the NGA community actively engage in the ICN’s work. They rely on informal and

flexible communications and working methods, focused on e-mails and teleconferences to do so,

which allow for timely, frequent, direct discussion. In this way, the scheduling of in-person meetings

does not dictate the pace of the group’s work, as it has in other international fora. Yet the working

groups also benefit from face-to-face meetings, at the ICN’s annual conference, at workshops, and

on the margins of other international meetings. The ICN’s work product is strengthened by the

diversity of views that underlie its creation. Broad-based project participation ensures that the work

reflects sound approaches applicable across various legal traditions and experience levels. This

further reinforces the relevance of ICN work product, promoting support by newer and more mature

agencies as well as NGA community, and thus ready advocates for the adoption and implementation

of such work product.22

Importantly, working together toward a common goal fosters close relationships and trust among

different actors within the community. This has the benefit of not only creating communities of

interest related to working group topics, but also has fostered the development of related

communities, for example, cartel enforcers or economists focused on antitrust, within the ICN’s

network. One could think of these sub-communities as overlapping constellations of experts within

the broader ICN orbit. As they have developed, so too has the value of the overall network. Moreover,

as these communities grow, and relations of trust develop within the network over time, the ICN has

been able to move from its initial projects, sometimes deemed low hanging fruit, to tackling more

intractable issues, including unilateral conduct concerns and procedural fairness,23 and addressing

some of the most challenging competition issues of our day, including competition challenges posed

by the digital economy.

Innovative Outputs

Intimately linked to the innovations of its design and working methods are the ICN’s outputs. ICN

work product generally serves to accomplish one or more functions: promoting transparency and

understanding of agency approaches and transference of skills; assessing comparative

approaches; and developing and promoting consensus norms and approaches. The projects focus

on disseminating learning, experience, and best practice, and are intended to support the network’s

overall goals of facilitating procedural and substantive convergence and cooperation in antitrust

policy and enforcement. They not only promote the adoption of the ICN’s preferred norms and

approaches, but also help to support the ICN’s less experienced agencies to mature quickly and

leapfrog over the failures of others.

The work product developed has been as innovative as the ICN’s structure and working methods.

Working groups were not and continue not to be limited by prescribed forms of or approach in

developing work product. Instead, they consider the most useful format to reach the project’s

desired goal, from developing online templates to make information on each of the ICN member

agency’s policies and practices available and transparent, to creating self-assessment tools for use

by agencies. Work product may be written, or presented in other manners, including through

interactive, hands-on workshops or web-based seminars. Notably, the ICN has even developed a

comprehensive curriculum of training materials, available as video modules and available online,

which serves as a virtual university on competition law and practice for competition agency officials

and those interested in competition law and policy.24 The range and evolution of the ICN’s project

selection and work product is discussed below in Section IV.

We focus here on the innovation of these approaches, recognizing that for each format, the ICN

essentially started with a blank slate. For example, consider the ICN’s most high-profile work, its

Recommended Practices. While ICN recognized the importance of facilitating convergence toward

best practice from its earliest stages, the concept of an ICN Recommended Practice did not exist

until created by the members and NGAs of the Merger Working Group’s Notification and Procedures

subgroup. This group determined that they needed not only to identify best practices on the subject,

but also had to present the agreed best practices in a manner in which the practices could be best

understood and implemented by the ICN’s membership. The tool had to be user friendly and

applicable across legal traditions. The group determined that the recitation of non-binding, black-

letter statements of consensus best practice, followed by explanatory comments would best serve

these requirements, and allow for updating and expansion as appropriate. The format proved so

successful that it has served as the template for all following ICN Recommended Practices.

Of course, the ICN will not be judged a success based merely on its innovations or the amount of

work that it produces. Yet through its innovative design, working methods and work product, the ICN

has already brought the broader competition community together and instilled a common purpose.

Its success has and will continue to be assessed based on the impact that it has on international

competition law and enforcement, and whether it, in fact, meets its goals of facilitating procedural

and substantive convergence and cooperation in antitrust policy and enforcement. The

implementation of its work is a considerable factor in this assessment.

III. The ICN’s Commitment to Implementation

The ICN was set up by its members to be “a project-oriented, consensus-based, informal network of

antitrust agencies”25 that explicitly does not exercise any rule-making function. Its “activities take

place on a voluntary basis and rely on a high level of goodwill and cooperation among members.”26

The ICN’s projected-oriented status plays out in defined working groups, focused on specific areas

of competition law and policy, i.e. mergers, cartels, advocacy, unilateral conduct, and agency

operations. Working groups are open to all ICN members and non-governmental advisors, and

project selection is pursued via open discussion within working groups each year.

The sixth and final clause of the ICN’s Mission and Activities provisions in its Operational Framework

raises the central challenge of the network: “Where the ICN reaches consensus on

recommendations arising from a project, it is left to its members to decide whether and how to

implement the recommendations . . . .”27 This is the only mention of implementation in the ICN’s

founding framework, and it acknowledges the soft spot of a soft law network: there is no

commitment, no obligation to follow ICN recommendations. Nonetheless, what the ICN has done to

address implementation has been vital to its success. This provision could have been the first and

final word on the implementation of ICN work. The network could have chosen to stand down and

leave members alone to consider, interpret, and use ICN work. Instead, the ICN chose to actively

support and inform member decisions on whether and how to implement ICN recommendations.

The network made the challenge of implementation integral to how the ICN operates – from work

planning and work product format choices to a variety of other activities such as workshops and

seminars. Accepting this challenge has been a crucial factor of the ICN’s success.

The Challenge of Measurement

The aspirational nature of the ICN’s work makes measuring implementation difficult. Former ICN

Chair David Lewis argued that ICN’s “range of activities” and work “do not easily lend themselves

to textual consensuses and harmonized implementation.”28 He explained that the development of

soft law “is rooted in consensus, rather than majority; in persuasion through shared experience,

rather than coercion; in understanding and celebrating differences, rather than suppressing

them.”29 This led him to conclude that the ICN should not judge itself by the “norms and standards”

of organizations that devise binding rules. Rather, the ICN should judge itself by “a more qualitative

and nuanced set of norms: are we developing a deeper understanding of each other’s key drivers

and practices? Are we providing a framework where the better resourced and more experienced

agencies are able to transmit the learnings from their successes and failures to the newer agencies?

Are we providing room for the full participation and voice of these newer agencies? Is the ICN a voice

for competition on the international stage and in the various national policy debates?”30

When the ICN has undertaken the resource-intensive task of tracking the use of its work, the results

point to a good deal of influence and success. The ICN’s 2010-11 Second Decade review included

interviews with most ICN members. The report stated that, “Over the past decade, ICN work

products have influenced agency practice of many ICN members, and have also influenced legal

and policy reforms in many ICN member jurisdictions. For example, 39 ICN members have reported

using the Anti-Cartel Enforcement Manual to advance their cartel enforcement programs. Two-thirds

of ICN members that made changes to their merger control regimes cited the ICN Recommended

Practices for Merger Notification and Review Procedures as having influenced their reforms. More

than a dozen agencies have reported using the ICN’s Recommended Practices on Dominance /

Substantial Market Power Analysis Under Unilateral Conduct Laws in their casework or staff

training.”31 A 2010 Merger Working Group assessment of the use of its work reported that “over

90% of responding agencies indicated that they used MWG work product – dozens reported the use

of MWG RPs contributing to change in their merger regimes.”32

The nature and volume of ICN work has become so vast and varied that real-time, hard statistics on

implementation are not feasible. What is known about use of ICN work tends to be anecdotal –

stories and experiences shared by members within the network. Undoubtedly there is a vast amount

of ICN work product implementation and influence that is not known – for instance, day-to-day staff

investigative choices and practices informed by participation at a workshop, viewing of an ICN online

training video, or review of a good practices manual on specific enforcement areas. The ICN

encourages members to share these stories, but the reach and impact of ICN work is beyond

efficient and easy measure.

Implementation Takes Root

The ICN’s first years focused on creating work product on topics of vital importance. Its first two

projects addressed divergence in merger notification rules and competition advocacy basics. Other

early work addressed capacity building for new and younger agencies, merger analysis guidelines,

and the building blocks of cartel enforcement. No sooner did the working groups accomplish

creative new output than questions arose about how to ensure its influence. ICN working groups

very quickly realized they were not just in the business of creating work product, but also nurturing,

promoting, and advocating for its use.

ICN working groups have been integral to promotion and use of ICN work product. Over the years,

working groups have explored creative ways to raise awareness about existing ICN work and

encourage its implementation. By nature of its status as drafter of ICN’s first recommendations, the

Merger Working Group became a pioneer in implementation efforts. No sooner had the group

completed a groundbreaking set of Recommended Practices for Merger Notification and Review

Procedures,33 than it turned to members’ experiences with implementation. In 2005, the working

group published a report on Implementation of the Recommended Practices for Merger Notification

and Review Procedures,34 identifying implementation challenges and how members addressed

them, and in 2006, it compiled examples of conforming language from competition laws and

regulations around the globe.35 The group later introduced a new type of work product developed

solely to encourage implementation – the self-assessment tool – that allows agency members to

benchmark their own practices against ICN recommendations.36 Today, working groups routinely

promote their existing work though network teleseminars and workshop sessions based around ICN

recommendations and good practices. Annual conferences include sessions that highlight member

stories of using ICN work to inform new laws or agency practices. The ICN newsletter and “town hall”

conference calls have been used to promote awareness of ICN work. The ICN’s “Training on

Demand” set of online videos with agency and academic presenters reinforce existing ICN work in

a novel, accessible format.37

The ICN also offers formal advice to members when they seek external support for reforms. Former

ICN Chair Eduardo Perez Motta called for the ICN to take a “more active role when asked by

members for assistance on specific policy initiatives.”38 Over the years, the Steering Group and

working groups have authored several letters about ICN recommendations to agency members who

have requested advice. There also are many more instances of working groups assisting members

by identifying relevant ICN work recommendations for consideration to benchmark internal

practices. As Perez Motta explained, “[o]ne should not underestimate the potential influence of 123

agencies speaking with one voice to support one of their own, on the basis of well-founded and

time-tested best practices.”39

Institutionalizing Implementation

The ICN has made institutional decisions to strengthen its advocacy for implementation. In its

Second Decade project, the ICN institutionalized its view on the importance of encouraging

implementation. In 2012, when the ICN revised its mission statement on the occasion of its tenth

anniversary, it embraced the challenge of implementation as part of its top line goal, beginning,

“[t]he ICN’s mission is to advocate the adoption of superior standards and procedures in

competition policy around the world . . . .”40 Taking on this role as an advocate, the ICN confirms

that it is not enough to identify, articulate, or create standards, but essential to see them through

to implementation. In the words of former ICN Chair John Fingleton, ICN’s work “has to translate into

real outcomes.”41 The Second Decade report’s long-term vision for the ICN also identified four high

level goals for the ICN, including to “encourage the dissemination of competition experience and

best practice.”42

Current ICN Chair Andreas Mundt has maintained the network’s emphasis on the value of

implementation efforts. His vision statement for the ICN cites implementation as one of three “key

factors” to ICN success, emphasizing that if the ICN wants “to ensure that the ICN and its work

products matter, we need to make our high-quality products available to everyone and continue our

efforts to promote their implementation.”43 The ICN also has tailored its work planning process to

emphasize promotion and implementation efforts. Each year, ICN working groups discuss and

propose annual and three-year work plans. A network-wide review of the proposals by the Steering

Group encourages a category of implementation work that promotes and highlights existing work

product.

The single biggest act of institutionalizing the ICN’s commitment to encouraging use and

implementation of its work came with the establishment of a group dedicated to implementation.

The ICN established an “Advocacy and Implementation Network,” later renamed the Promotion and

Implementation (“P&I”) team. The P&I team is made up of Working Group chairs and other

interested members. It coordinates network-wide implementation initiatives, being the first stop for

questions from members about existing ICN work and its application. P&I encourages ICN member

implementation stories to help inspire members with ideas from their peers about how to use ICN

work. It also coordinates ICN advice to members that are contemplating changes to laws, rules, or

practices that may be informed by ICN recommendations or other work.

Implementation Success in a Non-binding Context

How has a non-binding network that eschews any obligation to implement its recommendations had

success in the adoption of its recommendations? There are three key aspects of the ICN and its

operations that serve to support and promote implementation in the ICN’s non-binding context.

First, do not overlook the power of the ICN’s working process, as described above in Section II. ICN

work product is developed by a broad range of its membership and non-governmental experts

working in dedicated working groups. Its consensus is built on a foundation of best practices,

common approaches, and perspectives of member agencies and experts from around the world

from a variety of institutional and legal settings. This well-informed input allows members to

benchmark their own practices against the best that the competition community has to offer – the

direct experiences of similarly situated agencies that share similar needs and missions. ICN work is

created for the competition community, by the competition community. Producing work with

widespread relevance from sources tested by experience amounts to a very powerful starting point

for implementation. By nature of its consensus development and quality content, the work itself is

compelling, and worthy of consideration and implementation.

Second, the active commitment of the ICN and its members to promoting ICN work has bolstered

interest and implementation. The approach behind the ICN’s work is to make best practices

accessible to all competition agencies. The many agencies and experts that actively participate in

developing ICN work are invested in its success. They realize that a work product has a potential

lifespan and utility that far outreaches the time and resources to develop it. They introduce existing

work to new ICN members and new staff that become involved in the ICN across its membership.

The success of ICN work is linked to its use and implementation, and working groups understand

that.

Third, the ICN’s success with encouraging implementation can be attributed to the creativity with

which it has pursued member implementation. The ICN has a long, innovative history of finding ways

to promote and support member decisions on “whether and how to implement” ICN

recommendations, as mentioned earlier. As a voluntary, non-binding, non-rule making network, the

ICN lacks the proverbial stick or enforcement mechanism. It can only offer carrots. However, the ICN

has embraced this spirit with a variety of tools and formats that support and encourage member

implementation – offering carrots, broccoli, apples, spinach, berries, pears, and peppers; a virtual

cornucopia of healthy recommendations and advice for member agencies to consider.

Future of Implementation

In its current form, the ICN remains a non-binding, virtual and voluntary network with no impetus to

change the nature of the network’s soft law convergence mission. Still, the ICN’s efforts to

encourage agencies to implement its work should not be dismissed as an afterthought. ICN Chair

Mundt’s vision for the network links the ICN’s commitment to implementation and its overall

influence by emphasizing the “great importance for the ICN in the future to raise awareness for its

work products, promote them and ensure that they are implemented into legislation and everyday

work, making the ICN the key element of global convergence in competition law.”44 Implementation

efforts in the ICN have evolved and likely will continue to influence global convergence in at least

two ways.

First, a review of the ICN’s history reveals innovative steps in its implementation efforts, from

institutional efforts, work planning and formats, and promotion by working groups. There may be

internal innovations in development yet to come. For example, the ICN has developed a novel

addition to the ICN work product family: opt-in frameworks. The ICN has promulgated three such

frameworks, one on merger enforcement cooperation, one on cartel enforcement cooperation, and

one covering procedural fairness principles for competition agency procedures.45 The idea of these

frameworks is to complement the ICN’s typical consensus building work but allow participants to

affirm additional principles. These ICN frameworks are a creative, evolutionary step in the ICN’s

approach to the implementation of its work. This is not a move to hard commitments. However, the

frameworks have their own built-in implementation tools, permitting additional cooperation and

engagement among agencies with the potential to help boost convergence. These frameworks

demonstrate the ICN’s willingness to expand its toolbox for implementation, allowing for additional

opt-in commitments for and among willing agencies on specific topics.

Second, ICN work and consensus building influences the development of norms elsewhere. For

instance, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (“OECD”) merger review

recommendation46 took inspiration from ICN recommendations. Likewise, the OECD is developing

a recommendation on procedural fairness that borrows from ICN consensus principles.

Organizations such as Asia-Pacific Economic cooperation (“APEC”) have used or referenced ICN

work in their programs and training. Given its development by competition experts, ICN work is likely

to continue to influence norm creation in more binding settings, providing a ready-made resource

on the competition community’s best thinking.

One of the key pillars of the ICN’s success has been its insistence that implementation is not an

afterthought. The ICN’s non-binding nature could have excused the ICN from the hard work of

promoting real world impact, but ICN members and leadership have accepted and maintained the

challenge to craft compelling, relevant work and promote its use. This has breathed life into the

ICN’s mission and influence. The ICN’s history of prioritizing implementation efforts and its robust

and creative practices of encouraging such efforts suggest that the ICN’s next twenty years will be

filled with many examples, anecdotes, and stories of how the network drives convergence.

IV. The Evolution of ICN Work Product

Work product is central to the ICN’s mission and success. It is the focal point for ICN participation

and how the ICN as a virtual network addresses the practical needs of its member agencies. Three

general trends characterize the ICN’s work topics, types, and formats over its first twenty years: 1)

growth from a focus on enforcement fundamentals to incorporating a full-fledged range of topics, 2)

organization around a loose hierarchy of types of work, and 3) a creative expansion in terms of the

formats used.

Trend 1: From Fundamentals to Full-range

In the beginning, the ICN’s first two projects addressed the basics of competition advocacy and

merger notification rules. These topics were identified for different purposes, both vital to the ICN’s

mission and success. The first identified and articulated the underpinnings of competition law and

policy that are relevant to all agencies: the benefits of competition. The second project had a

different purpose: target divergence, compare approaches, and draft consensus recommendations.

These projects demonstrated the ability both to reinforce foundational needs shared by all

competition agencies and to promote new convergence of specific agency approaches via practical

recommendations. From the very beginning, the ICN would walk and chew gum at the same time.

With a growing familiarity with and confidence in its working methods – and the expansion in the

number of members – the ICN’s annual slate of projects also grew. Within its first five years, the

initial Merger and Advocacy Working Groups were joined by working groups on Cartels,

Unilateral Conduct, and a work stream focused on agency operations that went through several

naming iterations from “Capacity Building” to “Competition Policy Implementation” to today’s

“Agency Effectiveness” Working Group. Today, a typical working group annual plan includes two or

three written projects (a mix of new work and regular revisions to existing work), several teleseminar

topics (often in a themed series), a workshop, and implementation-related efforts to raise

awareness of existing work. All combined, ICN working groups tackle some 20-25 distinct topics

each year.

The topics that the ICN addresses have expanded to match the full range of issues that its member

competition agencies address. The ICN’s early focus on perceived pressing problems, issues of

wide-applicability, and the fundamentals of enforcement led to work on topics such as merger

guidelines; the building blocks of anti-cartel enforcement; the objectives of unilateral conduct

enforcement; case selection; and investigative techniques. Building upon these initial, often broad-

based projects, working groups developed work product on more tailored, related topics such as

advocacy before various stakeholders such as legislatures, business, and the public; market

studies; obstruction; various types of single firm conduct; leniency programs; merger notification

forms and filing fees; agency ethics rules; remedies and settlements in mergers and cartels; private

enforcement; and agency use of social media.47

One vehicle for the introduction of new topics is the ability of annual conference hosts to lead a

special project or showcase topic. Past conference projects have focused on telecom law and the

interaction with telecom regulators, enforcement in small economies, the nature and meaning of

consumer welfare, agency interaction with judges, state-owned enterprises, disruptive innovation,

and online vertical restraints. The ICN has also expanded its work product into important cross-

cutting topics that are not easily captured in individual working groups. A seminal example occurred

in 2011, with a Steering Group decision to initiate two large-scale projects outside of the working

group annual plans: one on enforcement cooperation and one on procedural fairness in competition

agency procedures. While each topic was relevant to various working groups, there was a value to

projects that could draw experience from multiple competition enforcement and policy areas. Both

projects led to significant ICN work product and standalone workshops.48

It is important to note that the ICN has not forgotten work on the fundamentals of competition law

enforcement and policy. Many of the seminal work products that address the basics of investigation,

enforcement, and agency approaches are regularly revisited and updated as needed.

For example, the two sets of ICN Recommended Practices on merger notification rules and on

merger analysis have been updated since their creation and many of the ICN Anti-cartel

Enforcement Manual chapters have been renewed over its decade-plus lifespan.

Over time, in addition to work on shared goals and specific convergence on established enforcement

frameworks and approaches, a third strand of work developed: exploring new, developing, and

unresolved topics in various formats. Part of effective enforcement is addressing challenges

presented by new issues, markets, and theories. Member agencies have brought these challenges

to a shared dialogue within the ICN. The discussion of hot topics is a purposeful decision by the ICN

to facilitate experience sharing and take part in shaping global competition law dialogue. Examples

of this “ICN 2.0” line of topics have included disruptive innovation, competition advocacy in an

economic downturn, online vertical restraints, public interest standards and industrial policy, and

implications of the digital economy. These types of topics often are recognized as not ripe for

consensus recommendations, but the ICN has valued member discussion and exchange on new

developments. Competition agencies created the ICN as their own forum, and have increasingly

used it to address topical policy issues alongside more traditional work on enforcement

fundamentals. The evolution of content is a shining example of how the ICN reflects the needs of

its members and chooses meaningful priorities for its work. Today’s ICN work program is every bit

as vibrant and varied as its member agencies and the full range of issues they face.

Trend 2: A Focus on Purpose

The second trend in ICN work product involves the type of work, or its purpose and intended

audience, often reflected in titles such as recommended practices or practical guide. Early ICN work

product carried an assortment of titles, including recommended practices, best practices,

suggested best practices, good practices, workbooks, handbooks, manuals, booklets, frameworks,

toolkits, reports, findings, models, practical guides, guiding principles, and lessons learned. While

the titles of ICN work product still evidence this creativity, working groups have settled around three

general categories of written work, with different purposes.

“Recommended Practices” or RPs are the ICN’s “gold standard” for network approved consensus

recommendations, intended as a resource to benchmark agency rules and practices and a driver of

convergence. The ICN’s RPs include:49

• Recommended Practices for Merger Analysis (2002-2017) addressing common legal

framework and merger guidelines factors.

• Recommended Practices for Merger Notification & Review Procedures (2002-2017)

addressing notification principles such as nexus between the merger’s effects and the

reviewing jurisdiction and appropriate notification threshold as well as procedural principles

such as procedural fairness, transparency, and confidentiality.

• Recommended Practices for Dominance/Substantial Market Power Analysis (2008)

addressing the framework and criteria for assessing dominance/substantial market power.

• Recommended Practices for Investigative Process (2019) promoting fair and informed

enforcement through principles of transparency, engagement, internal safeguards, and the

protection of confidential information.

Next, working groups developed a category of work that includes “good practices” and other

practical work product (often with titles such as guides, manuals, or workbooks) that often are more

focused on day-to-day investigative choices. These guides are reference tools for agency staff to

enable them to evaluate and compare their own approaches. They detail practices that work well

for some, or even many, members but may not be readily applicable for all. More is written in the

annals of ICN’s work product for the front-line investigator than any other audience. Examples

include:

• The Anti-Cartel Enforcement Manual is a compilation of practical discussions, tips and

techniques employed at various stages of enforcement and identifies approaches that have

proven effective and successful.50

• The Investigative Techniques Handbook for Merger Review describes the tools and

techniques used in merger review, such as how to plan a merger investigation, developing

reliable evidence in merger cases, economic and econometric analyses, and the benefits of

sound economics and including economists in merger review.51

• The Unilateral Conduct Workbook explores techniques and approaches to various aspects of

unilateral conduct enforcement, covering the analytic framework, assessing market power

and approaches to analyzing specific type of conduct.52

• The Agency Effectiveness Competition Agency Practice Manual identifies key elements of a

well-functioning competition agency and provides best practices for agency strategy,

planning, implementation, and operations.53

Finally, a majority of ICN work makes up a category of informative or comparative reports – often

the first line of work when the ICN explores a new topic. These reports often articulate different

approaches in different jurisdictions but do not present a consensus recommendation. Examples

(just a few) include reports on the objectives of unilateral conduct laws, merger remedies, market

studies, competition advocacy, vertical mergers, cartel settlements, merger filing fees, obstruction

of justice, and waivers of confidentiality in merger investigations.54

One of the reasons that this loose, natural hierarchy of ICN work developed is ‘implement-ability,’

as RPs represent ICN recommendations for all; good practices and practical guides offer accessible

advice for investigative staff and agency investigative practices; and reports provide the opportunity

to scan and compare the spectrum of approaches across different jurisdictions. Many of the

dedicated ICN implementation efforts on issues of procedure, analysis, and policy emanate from

the consensus RP category, with investigative techniques training workshops and experience

sharing seminars often espousing ICN’s practical, investigator-facing work and reports.

Trend 3: Font of Creativity

The third overarching trend or characteristic of ICN work product has been the creativity in delivery.

The growth of different formats for ICN work product has matched the expansion of topics

addressed. Early ICN work was dominated by the written word, with a project typically starting with

a comparative survey and report, the identification of consensus approaches, and ultimately

progressing to a written practical guide or recommendation. This is still the tried and true working

procedure for most topics that are addressed within the ICN. However, over the years, the ICN’s

written output has been joined by creative complements in a variety of formats.

In 2002, the ICN held its first staff-facing workshop, a merger workshop held in Washington, hosted

by the U.S. agencies. It involved a detailed hypothetical case with an agenda built around

investigative techniques tips and exercises. This type of event has been replicated in ICN Cartel and

Unilateral Conduct workshops targeted to investigative staff and enforcement managers. All ICN

Working Groups, including Advocacy and Agency Effectiveness, regularly organize workshops

dedicated to staff training or policy discussions.

In 2005, the Cartel Working Group introduced the idea of a dedicated, themed teleseminar series

as a work product to facilitate experience sharing on topics such as settlements and criminal

enforcement. Before then, ICN calls were primarily used for written work drafting and updates.

Today, every working group holds substantive discussion calls that complement existing work

products or often explore novel issues not addressed in ICN’s existing catalog of written work.

The advent and increase of discussion seminars in working groups across the network on a wide

variety of topics has provided opportunities for real-time, direct experience sharing and substantive

discussion on timely topics. The ICN Chair has also hosted network-wide “town hall” seminars on

topical issues, such as public interest review in mergers.

The creativity in work formats can be seen across the ICN’s website, with online tools such as the

ICN Market Studies Information Store,55 cartel, merger, and agency procedures templates56

provided by members that explain basic agency rules and practices, online guides to explaining the

benefits of competition57 and advocacy toolkits,58 and a library of leniency59 links. Large, new

projects, such as the 2012 ICN’s Market Studies Handbook60 (later updated in 2016), have

undergone a period of “road testing” with a few agencies before they are finalized in order to learn

from how agencies use the information. Recommended Practices are now often accompanied by

companion “self-assessment tools” – checklists for agencies to benchmark their own practices with

the ICN recommendations. Choices about work formatting, planning, and roll-outs represent some

of the creative ways that the ICN has put the use of ICN work product at the heart of its operations.

The ICN’s most significant and prolific creative choice for alternative work formatting is its Training

on Demand project, an idea initiated in 2010 by the FTC.61 The Training on Demand project’s library

of 25 (and growing) modules is an effort to create a comprehensive curriculum of training materials

to serve as a virtual university on competition law and practice for competition agency officials.

Training modules produced by academics and agencies, consisting of video lectures and

accompanying ICN materials, provide an on-line interactive educational center for competition

authorities from around the world.

The story of the ICN’s output – with well over 100 distinct work products (and counting) – is a vibrant

story of purposeful growth to address member needs and creativity to deliver meaningful

information and guidance to its members. The ICN’s first wave or “1.0-era” work tended to focus on

written work products addressing enforcement fundamentals and the basic underpinnings and

benefits of competition law. The ICN’s “2.0 era” work incorporates more cross-cutting policy topics

that overlap with competition, timely debates, cooperation-oriented tools, and a wider variety of work

formats. Both aspects are alive and well today within the ICN, and combine to produce a robust,

treasure trove of work for ICN members.

V. Evolution of the ICN into a Global Advocate for Competition

The ICN was established as a project-oriented network to address practical issues facing its member

agencies.62 Thus, its early work focused on promoting convergence on common standards for

dealing with challenges such as divergent merger notification thresholds,63 and fundamentals of

enforcement such as investigative techniques.64 Throughout its history, the large majority of the

ICN’s work product has fallen into these categories, with best practices work expanding to cover

most areas of competition law including merger analysis, unilateral conduct analysis, and anti-cartel

enforcement, as well as practical aspects of the design and organization of competition agencies.

As the organization matured and its membership rapidly grew to encompass almost every

competition agency in the world, it began to consider whether, in addition to working on internal

agency policies and practices, it could assert a common voice more widely to advocate

procompetitive policies. Although there was some concern about venturing into a realm that could

be more political and could intersect with other Ministries in members’ governments, ICN leadership

understood that the collective breadth and expertise of the ICN membership could be an important

voice for consumers. The value of moving the ICN in this direction was heightened by the realization

that there was no comparable international body that could speak with the authority of the ICN as

a voice for competition. Moreover, it became clear that the proposition that competition policy

should be a key organizing principle for national economies in many cases needed buttressing and

in some cases was under serious challenge.

The movement toward a broader advocacy role was an evolutionary rather than revolutionary step

for the ICN. Domestic competition advocacy was a key component of the ICN’s work from the outset.

Indeed, the Advocacy Working Group was, along with the Merger Working Group one of the ICN’s

first projects. The working group shared experiences and developed tools for competition agencies

to serve as advocates for competition. Its work has included preparing an advocacy toolkit to

enhance the capacity of agencies to influence domestic policy, a project on explaining the benefits

of competition, developing recommended practices for assessing the competitive effects of existing

or proposed policies, and a report on developing a “culture of competition.”65

ICN member agencies participate in numerous international bodies that deal with economic issues

that directly or indirectly involve competition policy – for example, the OECD, UNCTAD, APEC, the

G20 and G7, and BRICS – and their governments participate in higher-level discussions on broader

economic policy. Over time, the ICN recognized that it had the ability and desire to use its experience

in formulating and advocating procompetitive policies to advocate procompetitive polices, including

in such international bodies, in the media, and elsewhere.

The ICN thus began to spread its wings in several directions. There were occasions when members’

legislatures were considering reforms that involved issues on which the ICN had adopted

recommended practices, particularly regarding merger review procedures. When the ICN

determined that its intervention would likely be welcome and effective, it submitted letters on behalf

of its Steering Group urging that the legislative body enact rules that were consistent with

international standards as reflected in the ICN’s recommended practices. The ICN also teamed with

the OECD on a project to examine international enforcement cooperation,66 and with the World Bank

on an annual competition advocacy contest67 that brings member agencies’ work promoting

competition policy to an audience of global policymakers.

The challenge to competition policy became particularly acute during the financial crisis that began

in 2008. As many governments reacted by diminishing the role of competition policy or even

explicitly overriding it,68 ICN Chair David Lewis recognized the issue and the ICN’s potential role in

confronting it:

Competition law … is the Magna Carta, the fundamental law, of the market system.

As such, it cannot be confined to an island where its relationship with every other

branch of economic and social policy – particularly with trade and industrial policy –

is studiously ignored. And if anybody seriously believed that this was ever possible,

then the financial and economic storm that has battered us all since the latter half of

2007 and the policy responses to these events should have put paid to any such

illusions. With industrial policy ascendant and protectionism in the air, can we afford

to remain aloof? Must we not rather engage with the concerns of policy makers to

ensure that their interventions – many of them necessary – respect and preserve

that which is dynamic and creative and democratic in a market system? …. [W]e can

use the forum of the ICN to discuss the appropriate interface of our work with

industrial and trade policy and with the social and developmental needs of our

citizens.69

As the challenges to competition policy mounted during the financial crisis, the ICN put this call to

arms into practice by developing and disseminating to its members “The Case for Competition in

Difficult Times.” A big step forward for the network, the document was a strong collective statement

of how competition has fostered economic growth, how it can aid economic recovery, and how it can

support broader government policy objectives.70 ICN members used the statement to influence

public debate and policy to ensure that competition was properly considered by governments as

they dealt with the crisis.

This enhanced role for the ICN was enthusiastically embraced by the ICN’s next Chair, Eduardo Perez

Motta, who made it a key theme of his remarks to the ICN’s 2012 annual conference:

The recent global financial crisis showcased … the importance of embedding

competition principles in the broader policy debate at the national and international

level. The ICN did important work in supporting its members’ advocacy efforts with

products as the Competition in Times of Crisis document, but there is no question

competition concerns still have, if at all, a rather precarious hold on the minds of most

policy makers, locally and globally.

The ICN … is uniquely placed to supplement local efforts by its members with

initiatives to place competition issues on the agenda of national and international

(regional or global) organizations and fora. If I am allowed to speak of the Mexican

experience, we have found that it is often a matter of reminding policy makers over

and over again, linking competition concerns with existing policy goals and providing

concrete, easily comprehensible and implementable guidance.

Of course, this is not something that can be achieved easily or fast. But it will not

happen spontaneously, nor will somebody else do it for us. I believe it is time for us

to start making a concerted effort to push competition as an item on the global policy

agenda, by using every opportunity to pitch the idea to anyone with potential impact

on that agenda – whether it is members of national administrations with a say in

international initiatives or international officials of all levels- and by providing

guidance on (fairly) general principles for competition-friendly policy formulation.71

Perez Motta further elaborated on this theme the following year:

In addition to efforts in our respective domestic spheres, we need also to use our

voice in the international arena. Whether with the G20 or B20 or other groups

suggested this week, we must seek to promote sound competition policy…. It is my

hope that you will individually seek opportunities to promote competition. With your

permission, I will work with the ICN’s Steering Group to identify additional ways we

can reach a new audience as a network.72

While these proclamations were in speeches to a competition audience, Perez Motta also joined

with EC Vice President and Competition Commissioner Joaquín Almunia in an op-ed in a major

media outlet entitled, “The Competition Factor,” which appealed to policymakers to include

competition on the economic agenda.73

The ICN had another, recent opportunity to showcase its role as a leading venue for influencing

global competition practice through agency-led dialogue and convergence. In 2018, there was a

proposal for competition agencies to create a multilateral framework on agency procedures.74 The

proposal was envisioned as a standalone, non-binding international arrangement to encourage

basic procedural fairness principles with the ability to facilitate agency-to-agency consultations. The

framework’s content was generally non-controversial, as it largely mirrored work on procedural

fairness that the ICN and others had been doing. The structure of the proposal, however, was met

with opposition because many ICN members viewed creating a new forum as confusing or

inefficient, as well as unnecessary given the ICN’s near-universal membership, established working

procedures, and existing work addressing the substantive topics. For example, EU Competition

Commissioner Vestager argued that such initiatives should be accomplished through existing

multilateral bodies like the ICN, and a European Commission official summed up this perspective

by stating, “For an agency, I would be probably more willing to join an initiative under the umbrella

of the ICN, rather than join now a new self-standing initiative where you don’t really know where it

will end, what are your obligations, what it will mean in terms of resources and so on.”75

Ultimately, ICN members addressed these reservations about the structure and came together to

promulgate the principles through the ICN, which issued the Framework for Competition Agency

Procedures (known as “CAP”).76 The ICN Steering Group “ICN-ized” the proposal by adapting it to its

own structure using an opt-in framework for interested participants, an idea pioneered in its Merger

and Cartel Working Groups for enforcement cooperation frameworks. For transparency, it added

online templates on agency procedures, following models in the Merger and Cartel Working Groups.

The CAP’s novel agency consultation provisions allowed the ICN to expand its toolbox for

encouraging convergence.

The evolution of the proposed framework from a standalone mechanism to being housed in the ICN

was a vote of confidence in the ICN and its value to member agencies as a preferred venue for

competition agency interaction. It is an example of a mature network reaffirming members’

investments and their trust in the ICN’s tools and capacity to address multilateral issues. This

confidence and maturity can serve as a valuable foundation for the ICN, to the extent it decides to

identify and articulate its own voice on specific issues in international policy discussions.

In April 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the ICN Steering Group again led an initiative to

articulate basic, common considerations for its member agencies related to competition law

enforcement in times of crisis. The statement “Competition During and After the COVID-19

Pandemic”77 recognizes the challenges that competition agencies face to maintain their

enforcement missions and reaffirms the importance of maintaining competition to economies in

crisis. It urges member agencies to remain vigilant to anticompetitive conduct and supports agency

advocacy to promote competition as a guiding principle for economic recovery efforts. The ICN has

also used its platform to inform member agencies and share experiences with operational changes

and policy statements across the network of competition enforcers throughout the pandemic.

The ICN’s first twenty years have laid a firm foundation for the ICN to serve as a global competition

advocate. The FTC has been a consistent advocate for the ICN to fulfill this role. The FTC will continue

to highlight its importance and to be alert for opportunities for the ICN to perform this critical

function, which will serve the interests of consumers in the United States and around the world.

With both the need for sound competition policy and the challenges to its role, for example by

national industrial policies, greater than ever, it is important that the ICN, as a – many would say

the – pre-eminent international competition body, continue to serve as strong voice for competition

policy.

Conclusion

It is hard to imagine today’s international competition community without the ICN. It is a key

connector and facilitator of global antitrust dialog, central to international competition agency

interaction. We would have to invent something like the ICN if it did not exist. However, it is easier to

imagine if a more modest, less ambitious ICN had developed, in terms of its membership, its active

participation, its work product accomplishments, its working procedures, and its voice as

competition advocate. The first generation of ICN participants made many choices along to the way

to invest in and build today’s ICN. Their ambitious creativity, stewardship, and enthusiasm pushed

the potential of the network far beyond initial expectations. Their vision of an inclusive, active,

pragmatic network that addresses the full range of competition agency needs and challenges in a

cooperative, aspirational manner gives the ICN the tools, inspiration, and institutional standing for

future success. The authors and the FTC Office of International Affairs look forward to another

extraordinary 20 years for the ICN.

1 The authors work together at the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), Office of International Affairs (“OIA”). This article represents their views, not necessarily those of the Commission or any Commissioners. This article is a chapter of a forthcoming book of

essays: The ICN@20, edited by Paul Lugard & David Anderson, reproduced with permission. 2 Press Release, U.S. and Foreign Antitrust Officials Launch International Competition Network, October 25, 2001, available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2001/10/us-and-foreign-antitrust-officials-launch-international. 3 A notable exception is the Chinese competition agency, the State Administration for Market Regulation, which has declined to join. 4 Ulf Boge, ICN Chair, Closing Speech, ICN 4th Annual Conference (2005). 5 ICN Operational Framework 2(i) (2001), “A member of the ICN is a national or multinational competition agency entrusted with the

enforcement of competition law(s) or a competition agency of a customs territory entrusted with the enforcement of competition law(s) throughout the customs territory,” available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ICNOperationalFramework.pdf.

6 See ICN Operational Framework, 6. Non-Governmental Advisors at 6-7, supra note 5. 7 New and young agencies have regularly hosted ICN events, such as working group workshops and the ICN’s annual conference, bringing

an important voice to the organization and content of such events. For example, agencies in Morocco, Botswana, Ukraine, El

Salvador, India, Poland, Mauritius, Colombia, Czechia, Panama, Singapore, and Turkey have all hosted ICN events. 8 The ICN’s Vision for its Second Decade (2011), available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ICN2dDecade2011.pdf. 9 A statement by Andreas Mundt, President of the Bundeskartellamt, ICN Chair (2013), available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ICNSGMundtVision.pdf. 10 Ibid. p. 3. 11 Ibid. 12 ICN Report, Lessons to be Learnt from the Experiences of Younger Competition Agencies (2006) available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/portfolio/lessons-learned-from-the-experience-of-young-competition-agencies/.

13 ICN Report, Lessons to be Learnt from the Experiences of Younger Competition Agencies, An Update to the 2006 Report (2019) available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/wp-

content/uploads/2019/06/SGVC_YoungerAgenciesReport2019.pdf. 14 ICN Training on Demand, Developing Countries and Competition, available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/training/developing-countries-and-competition/. 15 ICN Training on Demand, Advice for New and Young Competition Agencies, available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/training/advice-for-new-and-young-competition-agencies/. 16 See for example, https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/about/; Paul Lugard (ed.): The international competition network

at ten. Origins, accomplishments and aspirations (2011). 17 For example, the OECD’s Competition Committee and related Working Parties, the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development

International Group of Experts on Competition Law and Policy. Recognizing the benefits of direct member engagement, the permanent secretariats of these groups also have developed new working approaches for selected projects that promote direct

engagement of small groups of interested agencies between meetings. 18 For an excellent assessment of ICN’s consensus process and how it has helped to promote convergence, see Hugh M. Hollman & William

E. Kovacic, The International Competition Network: Its Past, Current and Future Role, Minnesota Journal of International Law,

Vol. 20, p. 274, 2011. 19 David Lewis, ICN Chair, Introductory Address to 2009 ICN Conference, June 3, 2009 at 5, available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SpeechChairIntroLewis2009.pdf. 20 See current compendium of ICN work product, ICN Work Product Catalog available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ICNWPCatalog9-2019.pdf. 21 See https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-groups/ for further information on the ICN’s working groups. 22 Agencies and individuals unable to participate in the ICN’s day-to-day work still benefit from ICN work product, which is available free-

of-charge, on the ICN’s website, and the network, including discussion of work product and issues with experts from around the world either remotely or via participation in the ICN’s annual conference.

23 See Cynthia Lewis-Lagdameo, Climbing Mount Everest with the ICN Unilateral Conduct Working Group, Competition Policy International, November 2012, available at https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/assets/Uploads/ICN-11-27-2012-3.pdf; and Paul O’Brien, Procedural Fairness: Convergence in Process, Competition Policy International Antitrust Chronicle, November 2018, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/key-speeches-presentations/obrien_-_procedural_fairness_convergence_in_process_cpi_11-18.pdf.

24 See ICN Training on Demand Project, available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/training/. 25 ICN Operational Framework 1(i), supra note 5. 26 Ibid. at 1(iii) Mission and Activities. 27 Ibid. at 1(vi)(emphasis added). 28 David Lewis, supra note 18 at 2. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid.

31 ICN’S Vision for its Second Decade, supra note 8 at 2. 32 ICN Statement of Achievements (2001‐2013) at 14-15. 33 ICN Merger Notification and Review Procedures (2002-2018), available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/portfolio/merger-np-recommended-practices. The project and group that

produced the ICN’s N&P recommendations were led by the FTC. 34 ICN Report on Implementation of the Recommended Practices for Merger Notification and Review Procedures (2005) available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/portfolio/implementation-of-the-merger-notification-and-review-

procedures-rps. 35 ICN Merger Notification Implementation Handbook (2006), available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/wp-

content/uploads/2018/05/MWG_NPImplementationHB.pdf. 36 ICN Merger Notification and Procedures Self-Assessment Tool (2011) and ICN Merger Analysis Self-Assessment Tool (2019). 37 ICN Training on Demand, supra note 23. 38 Eduardo Pérez Motta Chairman, ICN Chair, Closing Remarks for the International Competition Network’s Eleventh Annual Conference

(April 20, 2012) at 4, available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/wp-

content/uploads/2020/01/SpeechChairMottaclosing2012.pdf. 39 Ibid. 40 The ICN’s Vision for its Second Decade, supra note 8 at 4-5. 41 John Fingleton, ICN Chair, The ICN’s Vision for its Second Decade, Speech (May 18, 2011) at 5, available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SpeechChairFingleton2011.pdf. 42 The ICN’s Vision for its Second Decade, supra note 8 at 5. 43 Andreas Mundt, supra note 9 at 4. 44 Ibid. at 2. 45 The three ICN Frameworks: for Merger Review Cooperation (2012), for Promotion of Sharing Non-Confidential Information for Cartel

Enforcement (2016), and for Competition Agency Procedures (2019), are available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/frameworks/. 46 Recommendation of the OECD Council on Merger Review (2005), available at

https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/mergers/40537528.pdf. 47 For the best overview of all of the ICN’s work product, see the ICN Work Product Catalog, available on the ICN’s homepage and

regularly updated, supra note 19. 48 See the OECD/ICN Questionnaire and Report on International Enforcement Cooperation (2013) available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-groups/icn-operations/cooperation/ and Report on 2011 ICN Roundtable on Enforcement Cooperation (Washington DC, 2011) available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/portfolio/report-on-2011-cooperation-roundtable/; ICN Recommended Practices for Investigative Process (2019) available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/portfolio/recommended-practices-for-investigative-process/; and Report on ICN Roundtable on Competition Agency Investigative Process (Washington DC, 2014) available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/AEWG_RoundtableReportInvestigativeProcess.pdf.

49 See list of, and links to, ICN Recommended Practices available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-

groups/icn-operations/icn-recs/. 50 ICN Anti-Cartel Enforcement Manual (2008-2019) available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-groups/cartel/investigation-enforcement/. 51 ICN Investigative Techniques Handbook for Merger Review (2005) available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/MWG_HBInvestigativeTechniques.pdf. 52 ICN Unilateral Conduct Workbook (2011-2017) available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-groups/unilateral-conduct/investigation-analysis/. 53 ICN Competition Agency Practice Manual (2010-2017) available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-

groups/agency-effectiveness/agency-operations/. 54 See ICN Work Product Catalog available on the ICN homepage for a full list of ICN reports, too numerous to list here, supra note 19. 55 ICN Market Studies Information Store available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-

groups/advocacy/market-studies/market-studies-information-store/. 56 ICN Cartel Templates available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-groups/cartel/templates/; ICN Merger

Templates available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-groups/merger/templates/; ICN CAP agency process templates available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/frameworks/competition-agency-procedures/cap-templates/.

57 ICN Benefits Project Online Resource available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-

groups/advocacy/benefits-of-competition/. 58 ICN Advocacy Toolkits available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-groups/advocacy/other-advocacy-

work/. 59 ICN Leniency Links available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-groups/cartel/leniency/leniency-links/.

60 ICN Market Studies Good Practice Handbook available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-

groups/advocacy/market-studies/. 61 ICN Training of Demand, supra note 23. 62 See Press Release on ICN launch, supra note 2. 63 ICN merger notification work available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-groups/merger/notification/. 64 For example, ICN Handbook on Investigative Techniques for Merger Review, supra note 50, and ICN Anti-Cartel Enforcement Manual,

supra note 49. 65 See ICN Advocacy Working Group available at www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-groups/advocacy/. 66 OECD/ICN joint project available at https://www.oecd.org/competition/oecd-icn-international-cooperation-survey.htm. 67 World Bank/ICN Competition Advocacy Contest available at https://www.worldbank.org/en/events/2019/11/11/2019-2020-

competition-advocacy-contest. 68 See, for example, Adrian Croft, UK clears Lloyds TSB takeover of HBOS, Reuters (October 31, 2008) available at

https://www.reuters.com/article/lloyds-hbos/update-2-uk-clears-lloyds-tsb-takeover-of-hbos-idUSLV42573620081031; and Michael Reynolds, Sarah Macrory & Michelle Chowdhury, EU Competition Policy in the Financial Crisis: Extraordinary Measures, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 33, Issue 6 (2001) available at https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2218&context=ilj.

69 David Lewis, supra note 18 70 ICN, The Case for Competition in Difficult Times (2009) available at https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/wp-

content/uploads/2018/07/ICNSGCase4competition.pdf 71 Eduardo Perez Motta supra note 37 at 4-5. 72 Eduardo Perez Motta, ICN Chair, Closing Speech to ICN Conference (April 26, 2013) available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SpeechChairMottaclosing2013.pdf. 73 Joaquin Almunia & Eduardo Perez Motta, The Competition Factor (April 25, 2013) available at https://www.project-

syndicate.org/commentary/how-pro-competition-policies-can-boost-economic-recovery-by-joaquin-almunia-and-eduardo-p--

motta?barrier=accesspaylog. 74 Makan Delrahim, Remarks on Global Antitrust Enforcement at the Council on Foreign Relations (June 1, 2018) available at

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-makan-delrahim-delivers-remarks-global-antitrust-enforcement.

75 Michael Acton, US global antitrust initiative runs into EU skepticism, but DOJ vows to push ahead, Mlex (November 12, 2018). 76 ICN Framework for Competition Agency Procedures, supra note 44. 77 ICN Steering Group Statement: Competition during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic” available at

https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/featured/statement-competition-and-covid19/.